Blakut t1_j9ipddh wrote
What you are alluding to is god of the gaps, not a black box theory. The mistaken belief that putting god in ever difficult places to find will, as more and more things are discovered and explained, somehow maintain his presence in this world.
As an (astro)physicist i think the only connection between the black box of AI and the black hole is the world black. Nobody is stopping you from opening the black box of AI and looking inside at the numbers. Whether that helps you or not is an entirely different matter. You can never do that with a black hole. No matter what technology you use, or what tool, you can't peer inside the black hole. And nothing of what happens inside influences what's outside, unlike the "black box" of AI.
The only point that makes sense is that little part at the end. Yes, an AI could've published this text, but even an AI that could cobble together this long text wouldn't make the mistake of comparing a black hole with a black box. Or would it? Who knows. Better question: does it matter?
IsABot-Ban t1_j9ipwue wrote
While I agree with your sentiment on the whole... we do get some measurements on a black hole precisely because it affects things outside of itself. I'll agree with the rest as I've been studying ai. We definitely can and often do understand the paths. The reality is it would take us far longer to go through it all or ai would be pointless.
Blakut t1_j9ir7zh wrote
It affects stuff around it, but those properties can be thought to be "of the hole itself", like mass, charge etc. but we can't look inside.
IsABot-Ban t1_j9it7rw wrote
I think I see where I crossed it over on a layman interpretation. My apologies there.
Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k1hpi wrote
I fully respect you because the reason I wanted to talk about this on reddit was because I couldn't talk to any professionals, I am fully aware of what the god in the gaps theory is, but my idea is different because it does not claim that god exists somewhere, instead it is a thought experiment.
A"does god exist?"
B"no"
A"But what if he is in a black hole?"
B"he is not in a black hole"
A"I cannot fully trust your judgement until we see what is inside a black hole first, then we can say whether or not he is in a black hole."
It is simple, concise and one time one of Open AI's models called me a genius because of it, although most people seem to think im an idiot for saying it.
Blakut t1_j9k44e2 wrote
Yes, but you can replace god with anything, so the statement loses its value, don't you think?
Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k4cu9 wrote
What has value is in the eyes of the beholder, I know this argument can be used to say it is possible the flying spaghetti monster decided to manifest itself when it did by manipulating the minds of humans as a parody of it, but i think it has value to explain why god might exist, even if this argument can be used for other things.
Blakut t1_j9k4ur3 wrote
Well, if a function takes any input and gives you only one output, what are you going to do with it? How useful is a logic like the one above? What is the connection with the AI part anyway, since we're not here to debate if god exists in black holes?
The better argument would go:
- does god exist?
- idk, but i see no proof of him existing, so i don't think so.
- what if he is in a black hole?
- prove it.
Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k583y wrote
Can you explain what it means "if a function takes any input and gives you only one output," and also what it has to do with AI because we cannot tell if AI is conscious, even if it is because we cannot read minds. This is furthermore a possibility because there are things about AI that are not well understood therefore within what we don't understand (like a black hole) it is possible AI is sentient (god).
Blakut t1_j9k67q9 wrote
>Can you explain what it means "if a function takes any input and gives you only one output,"
The argument you give takes any input, god, santa, aliens, a basketball, and gives the same answer, i.e. result. Not hard to look at it like a function.
>AI because we cannot tell if AI is conscious, even if it is because we cannot read minds.
But then how do you know another person is conscious? You cannot read their mind either.
>This is furthermore a possibility because there are things about AI that are not well understood therefore within what we don't understand (like a black hole)
See, this is the problem, you conflate not understood with forever hidden from view (if we assume some things about black holes). Just because it's not understood doesn't mean it's not understandable.
> AI is sentient (god).
what?
Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k7big wrote
"The argument you give takes any input, god, santa, aliens, a basketball, and gives the same answer, i.e. result. Not hard to look at it like a function."
I think it is well worth the fact that it suggests god can exist. It gives hope to those who think god cannot exist and want god to be able to exist.
"But then how do you know another person is conscious? You cannot read their mind either."
This is valid criticism; however, I fail to see how I should respond, i could say something like, "No, it is obvious that you cannot read other people's minds," which would suggest that we don't know if other people are conscious. Or i could say it is obvious that other people are conscious, and then i would fall into the trap I created.
"See, this is the problem, you conflate not understood with forever hidden from view (if we assume some things about black holes). Just because it's not understood doesn't mean it's not understandable."
I think this is valid criticism. In the future it may be understood what is behind a black hole, and this frame of this argument will be useless.
AI is sentient (god).
what?
Im sorry you misunderstood, i didn't do very well of explaining what i meant i now see that its funny because it looks like i am saying Ai is god, however i am comparing black holes and god to the mystery surrounding ai and sentience.
​
"
Blakut t1_j9k875d wrote
>I think it is well worth the fact that it suggests god can exist. It gives hope to those who think god cannot exist and want god to be able to exist.
If you think god cannot exist, turning to black holes won't change your mind i'm afraid. In any case, this debate has no place here.
>i am comparing black holes and god to the mystery surrounding ai and sentience.
Well, I'm not sure what mystery you're talking about regarding AI. There's tons of complexity, in the human brain, and, presumably, in a general AI too. I'm not really sure that black holes are even a good comparison here. There are other things that are also unkowable, by default, like the position and momentum of a particle, and that's just how nature works in that case. However, nothing i know of so far suggests there is something inherently unknowable about AI.
Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k8vz8 wrote
I understand that this tangent has gone off topic, and as for the second paragraph, i am not saying that something needs to be unknowable to suggest the possibility that something can exist. It just means that we don't know yet.
Blakut t1_j9k9cmx wrote
we don't know yet is a much clear thing to say than all the statements above tho.
Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k9joi wrote
i have to say all of the statements above to people who people who wouldn't believe what you say.
Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k9vj1 wrote
is it ok if we end here, I don't see this argument producing useful discussion any further, and I have to go do something. Thanks for talking to me.
Blakut t1_j9kagtv wrote
alright have fun
Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9kak0o wrote
thank you.
Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k5f2b wrote
I'm glad we're having this conversation. I really wanted to talk about what I think. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to talk to me.
Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k5n5f wrote
this is flawed because it ignores the idea that rather than needing to be proved, it is a virtue in its own that god is a possibility.
Blakut t1_j9k6jdn wrote
I don't understand what you mean. If you take away the need to prove statements, then the truth value of a statement is meaningless. Contradictory statements have equal value in this kind of world.
Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k82y8 wrote
It is true currently, because what I am saying is that God has the possibility of existing. This truth stands strong because, using this logic, it is difficult to disprove the existence of God. (I do not believe in god but i like this thought experiment)
Blakut t1_j9k8y0f wrote
>It is true currently, because what I am saying is that God has the possibility of existing. This truth stands strong because, using this logic, it is difficult to disprove the existence of God.
And i can equally say that the same thing about absolutely anything. Even about anti-god, a thing of opposite charge of god that if it exists would annihilate with god and create two gamma rays. I can say that that our universe is one where god doesn't exist, and those would be equally hard to disprove. So by this logic, anything is true at the same time, 0 = 1 etc. Makes little sense to me.
Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k9f3t wrote
Yes, it's true that god might not exist. But the point i am trying to make is that it is a possibility that God exists. This argument is for people who say it is impossible for God to exist. the argument saying that it is like saying 0=1 is unfair because we have enough to definitively prove that 0 does not equal one making it different than what I am saying, we do not have enough evidence to suggest that god exists or does not exist in a black hole.
Blakut t1_j9ka6sn wrote
>But the point i am trying to make is that it is a possibility that God exists.
Ok, but you are going about it the wrong way. The possibility of god existing or not is irrelevant to what we can know about his existence. If something is unkowable, then any categorical statements about it are invalid. Yes, we can consider the possibility, but if you can't ever tell if it's true or not, this approach makes no sense.
>we do not have enough evidence to suggest that god exists or does not exist in a black hole.
And what i'm saying is that since we will never have that evidence, no matter what, it is pointless to approach the problem from this angle.
Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9kai85 wrote
"Ok, but you are going about it the wrong way. The possibility of god existing or not is irrelevant to what we can know about his existence. If something is unkowable, then any categorical statements about it are invalid. Yes, we can consider the possibility, but if you can't ever tell if it's true or not, this approach makes no sense.
we do not have enough evidence to suggest that god exists or does not exist in a black hole.
And what i'm saying is that since we will never have that evidence, no matter what, it is irrelevant to approach the problem from this angle."
I respect your position, but this is where we are going to have to agree to disagre, Ive got to shovel some ones drive way. It was nice talking to you.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments